Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Physicians’ preferences for active-controlled versus placebo-controlled trials of new antihypertensive drugs

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians’ preferences for referring patients to, and using information from, active-controlled trials (ACTs) versus placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) of new antihypertensive drugs.

DESIGN AND SETTING: Nationwide mailed survey, with telephone contact of nonresponders to assess nonresponse bias.

PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two hundred primary care physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association’s Master File. Of 1,154 physicians eligible to respond, 651 (56.4%) returned completed questionnaires.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured physicians’ stated willingness to encourage hypertensive patients to enroll in ACTs and PCTs of new antihypertensive drugs, their views of the relative merits of ACTs versus PCTs, their stated willingness to prescribe new drugs tested in ACTs or PCTs, and their views regarding the overall justifiability of the 2 designs. Physicians were significantly more likely to indicate they would encourage their patients to enroll in ACTs than in PCTs (P<.0001). Physicians thought ACTs provided more valuable information for their practices, were more likely to lead to a public health benefit, offered enrolled patients greater opportunity for personal benefit, and were less likely to expose enrolled patients to unnecessary risks (all P<.0001). Physicians were more likely to prescribe new drugs that had been compared in ACTs (P<.0001), and viewed ACTs as a more justifiable method for testing new antihypertensive drugs (P<.0001). There was no evidence of nonresponse bias for these main results.

CONCLUSIONS: Although PCTs remain the standard method for testing new antihypertensive drugs, physicians strongly prefer ACTs. Using ACTs to test new antihypertensive drugs may enhance the efficiency of patient recruitment and more strongly influence physicians’ prescribing practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weber MA. The ethics of using placebo in hypertension clinical trials. J Hypertens. 1999;17:5–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kisch ES. Is the use of placebo in antihypertensive drug studies ethical? J Hypertens. 1999;17:147–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Preston RA, Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Williams DW. Placebo-associated blood pressure response and adverse effects in the treatment of hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1449–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT. Placebo-controlled trials are unethical in clinical hypertension research. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3167–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ellenberg SS, Temple R. Placebo-controlled trials and activecontrol trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 2: practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:464–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Temple RJ. When are clinical trials of a given agent vs. placebo no longer appropriate or feasible? Control Clin Trials. 1997;18:613–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and activecontrol trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:455–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kass EH. Ethical considerations in the planning of hypertension treatment trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1978;304:412–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:544–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kramer MS, Shapiro SH. Scientific challenges in the application of randomized trials. JAMA. 1984;252(19):2739–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Korn EL, Baumrind S, Randomised clinical trials with clinician-preferred treatment. Lancet. 1991;337:149–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Validity versus generalizability in clinical trial design and conduct. J Card Fail. 1998;4(3):239–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Halpern SD, Metzger DS, Berlin JA, Ubel PA. Who will enroll? Predicting participation in a phase II AIDS vaccine trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001;27:281–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313:36–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fleming TR. Design and interpretation of equivalence trials. Am Heart J. 2000;139:S171–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Rev Hum Subjects Res. 1987;9:7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Emmanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Welton AJ, Vickers MR, Cooper JA, Meade TW, Marteau TM. Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasirandomised, interview based study. BMJ. 1999;318:1114–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: E 10. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schoenberger JA. Ethical considerations in the planning of hypertension treatment trials. Discussion. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1978;304:420–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Berlin JA, Asch DA. A randomized trial of $5 versus $10 monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires. Med Care. In press.

  22. Schlesselman JJ. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians’ reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of adjuvant surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1363–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Benson AB, Pregler JP, Bean JA, et al. Oncologists’ reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:2067–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor KM. Integrating conflicting professional roles: physician participation in randomized clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:217–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor KM. Physician participation in a randomized clinical trial for ocular melanoma. Ann Ophthalmol. 1992;24:337–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor KM, Feldstein ML, Skeel RT, Pandya KJ, Ng P, Carbone PP. Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: results of a survey of the 1,737 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group investigators. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:1796–805.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vastag B. Breast cancer prevention study aims to overcome drug bias. JAMA. 2001;285:399–400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. MacIntyre IMC. Tribulations for clinical trials. Poor recruitment is hampering research. BMJ. 1991;302:1099–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: A prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Misbin RI. Placebo-controlled trials in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:773–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chmura Kraemer H. Statistical analysis to settle ethical issues. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:327–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Michels KB. The placebo problem remains. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:321–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Boissel J-P. Impact of randomized clinical trials on medical practice. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:120S-34S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boyle PJ, Callahan D. Physicians’s use of outcomes data: moral conflicts and potential resolutions. In: Boyle PJ, ed. Getting Doctors to Listen: Ethics and Outcomes Data in Context. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1998:3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1957–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: intervention as a goal in hypertension treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet. 2000;356:366–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet. 2000;356:359–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Bioethics, USA

    Scott D. Halpern MSCE &  David A. Asch MD, MBA

  2. Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics, USA

    Scott D. Halpern MSCE & Jesse A. Berlin ScD

  3. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, USA

    Raymond R. Townsend MD

  4. the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa

    David A. Asch MD, MBA

  5. Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich

    Peter A. Ubel MD

  6. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich

    Peter A. Ubel MD

  7. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 108 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr., 19104-6021, Philadelphia, PA

    Scott D. Halpern MSCE, Jesse A. Berlin ScD &  David A. Asch MD, MBA

  8. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, 3641 Locust Walk, 19104, Philadelphia, PA

    Peter A. Ubel MD &  David A. Asch MD, MBA

Authors
  1. Scott D. Halpern MSCE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter A. Ubel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse A. Berlin ScD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymond R. Townsend MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David A. Asch MD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott D. Halpern MSCE.

Additional information

This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from Merck and Company to the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Halpern, S.D., Ubel, P.A., Berlin, J.A. et al. Physicians’ preferences for active-controlled versus placebo-controlled trials of new antihypertensive drugs. J GEN INTERN MED 17, 689–695 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11024.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11024.x

Key words

Search

Navigation